Patriarchal societies came to dominate our world because they were better at waging war and making women have babies. Male solidarity endowed militaries with greater comparative advantage, enabling imperial expansion. Conquered people were either killed or culturally assimilated via religions that strengthened male solidarity and dominance, while glorifying motherhood, and threatening eternal damnation. Religions which amplified male solidarity and female fertility were most likely to thrive, militarily. By maximising the two major drivers of population growth (conquest and fertility), patriarchies won.
I enjoy so much of your research, but every once in a while you drop something like "Patriarchal societies came to dominate our world because they were better at waging war and making women have babies" and I stop cold. "Making women have babies?!" Don't women also have a sex drive? And pre-1960 wasn't it likely that sexually active women would become pregnant at some point? Don't most (I know: not all) women want babies? Wouldn't a maternal urge be a requirement of evolution? Please explain what you meant.
This is not about 20th century USA. This is about deeply patriarchal societies where girls are married at 16, bear children, have no choice, and little birth spacing.
Would you include, say, 1800s England or United States in that?
Seems to me women were encouraged through a mix of social institutions and economic pressures/realities including gendered inheritance, and the importance of male provider income in early industrial and agrarian societies. Women in general don't seem to resent those times, rather they romanticize them (e.g. Jane Austen).
There were methods of contraception in the 1800's, and women had choices other than contraception, such as remaining single and working, in contrast to today these were inglorious paths women were warned against (e.g. being an old maid) without media productions and ideological movements to celebrate them (e.g. Sex and the City).
Many people often romanticize the past and look back with rose-tinted glasses. Drop most modern Western women back in Edwardian England and see how they'd like it.
But my question is: if we want to have our current gender equal culture prevail, isn't it the case that we should be encouraging women to have babies (in a non coercive way, ofc)? Because otherwise, patriarchal cultures will take over
Should we be making our society more family friendly? Absolutely.
However I’m not sure that “more people = greater military effectiveness” holds to the same degree in the modern era. Warfare is heavily mechanized now and also *much* more destructive and lethal than it was in the Bronze Age, A 4-person crew in an M1Abrams could probably pulverize a Macedonian phalanx without even breathing hard.
I do not think the aim here is to conquer other territories, but to have our gender equal culture spread passively, which depends on a large population to some extent
Hollywood has a very small population, but has a overwhelming cultural presence globally. In East Asia, many women and girls got their first dose of feminism from American TV shows and movies.
Similarly, the SF Bay area doesn't have that many people, but it has some of the most powerful and influential Internet companies on earth.
By glorifying meritocracy, upward mobility and a multiethnic culture. These regions continue to attract the most brilliant minds of the world, further strengthening their cultural and technological dominance.
Using the terminology of Richard Dawkins, spreading gender equality is a matter of meme war, not a gene war. Especially in an age of instant communication at a global scale.
Another interesting strength of feminism is, feminists across all cultures truly like each other and enjoy each other's company. Patriarchal men, not so much, they probably still think about killing each other's babies when they get together.
The Amish seem easily able to avoid defeat in a meme war: the just don't consume the memes of outsiders. On the other hand, their pacifism would not work in an actual war.
I think feminists are going to have a difficult time wining the meme war if the consequences of feminism are a rising share of people living alone[1], not having sex[2], and not having children[3]. It's going to be really interesting if feminism is long-term associated with declining IQ[4] and social ills stemming from a need to increase immigration due to low fertility rates[5].
Is this what winning looks like?
> Patriarchal men, not so much, they probably still think about killing each other's babies
I don't think casual misandry is the path to understanding this.
One of the important ways to do this is with legislation, so single mothers can do more than survive, and raise their children with something energy left for themselves.
It seems rather likely that in a world where women are more biologically motivated to raise children, they will consequently have less collective time for non child raising activities. This would seem to make it very likely that men come to dominate those kinds of activities where there is more male participation.
However as you mentioned, societies that procreate successfully more are also more likely to dominate. A problem in modern first world society is severe reduction in procreation. If nothing changes, it will mean that over time, people from countries that can manage to have more children will dominate over first world societies that don't.
You mention that weakening of fraternal bonds helps gender equality. I think you're right, but there is a very real cost. If women spend more time climbing career ladders, they are not spending as much time looking for a partner. While it's trendy to say that women don't need a man, the fact of the matter is that as humans, we need a partner in life to feel complete. It's in our genes as a necessary motivation for procreation. It is quite sad to me that career equally is being valued over ultimate happiness in life. Not just by women but by men as well. Money is not everything. And interestingly, the church banning cousin marriage lead to a weakening of family ties that has lead to making it harder for those in western societies to raise children (because their parents and siblings are too far to help). Breaking ties of loyalty to families, tribes, and communities I see as a bad thing. Of course the negatives of cousin marriage might make a ban worth the trade off, but other social bond breakings like that seem strictly negative, as they give people a smaller village to help them raise their children, ultimately making parenthood harder. I agree with Kay that making parenthood easier is the best way to align gender equality with the realities of having children.
I hope we humans can find a way to successfully climb Maslow's hierarchy while satisfying our desire for fair treatment. We are becoming a lonely society, and that doesn't feel very positive.
Question: Is there an inherent contradiction in being against single sex spaces if they're male (5b) but being for single sex spaces if they're female (5c)?
Thanks for a great read Alice! I would like to know how you define patriarchy. Reading the article, I thought you were dealing with it as a dichotomous concept, which I don't think it is. Relatedly, even though your regional groupings of countries as persistently patriarchic make sense, there are significant differences across cases if we conceive of patriarchy as a continuous multidimensional and multilayered concept. I am familiar with the MENA region, and one reason why we may have to disintegrate it is how people's perceptions toward gender roles vary cross-nationally. There is even gender divergence within the Arab Gulf states due to different government policies. I wanted to share here charts on how diverse people's attitudes toward gender roles are in the region, but it seems the comment section doesn't permit that. You can find that data downloadable from the Arab Opinion Index.
Is fraternal solidarity incompatible with gender equality? It would be really depressing if gender equality requires men to give up on friendship, connection, and comradery with other men.
I enjoy so much of your research, but every once in a while you drop something like "Patriarchal societies came to dominate our world because they were better at waging war and making women have babies" and I stop cold. "Making women have babies?!" Don't women also have a sex drive? And pre-1960 wasn't it likely that sexually active women would become pregnant at some point? Don't most (I know: not all) women want babies? Wouldn't a maternal urge be a requirement of evolution? Please explain what you meant.
This is not about 20th century USA. This is about deeply patriarchal societies where girls are married at 16, bear children, have no choice, and little birth spacing.
Would you include, say, 1800s England or United States in that?
Seems to me women were encouraged through a mix of social institutions and economic pressures/realities including gendered inheritance, and the importance of male provider income in early industrial and agrarian societies. Women in general don't seem to resent those times, rather they romanticize them (e.g. Jane Austen).
when was contraception widely available?
If "widely" means industrial mass production, than condoms since the 1930s, the pill and IUD since the 1960s. https://daily.jstor.org/short-history-of-the-condom/
There were methods of contraception in the 1800's, and women had choices other than contraception, such as remaining single and working, in contrast to today these were inglorious paths women were warned against (e.g. being an old maid) without media productions and ideological movements to celebrate them (e.g. Sex and the City).
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/19th-century-birth-control-dittrick
Many people often romanticize the past and look back with rose-tinted glasses. Drop most modern Western women back in Edwardian England and see how they'd like it.
Alice, I love this explanation.
But my question is: if we want to have our current gender equal culture prevail, isn't it the case that we should be encouraging women to have babies (in a non coercive way, ofc)? Because otherwise, patriarchal cultures will take over
Should we be making our society more family friendly? Absolutely.
However I’m not sure that “more people = greater military effectiveness” holds to the same degree in the modern era. Warfare is heavily mechanized now and also *much* more destructive and lethal than it was in the Bronze Age, A 4-person crew in an M1Abrams could probably pulverize a Macedonian phalanx without even breathing hard.
I do not think the aim here is to conquer other territories, but to have our gender equal culture spread passively, which depends on a large population to some extent
Whereas today, we destroy in more subtle ways….i.e., non-union jobs.
Not necessarily.
Hollywood has a very small population, but has a overwhelming cultural presence globally. In East Asia, many women and girls got their first dose of feminism from American TV shows and movies.
Similarly, the SF Bay area doesn't have that many people, but it has some of the most powerful and influential Internet companies on earth.
By glorifying meritocracy, upward mobility and a multiethnic culture. These regions continue to attract the most brilliant minds of the world, further strengthening their cultural and technological dominance.
Using the terminology of Richard Dawkins, spreading gender equality is a matter of meme war, not a gene war. Especially in an age of instant communication at a global scale.
Another interesting strength of feminism is, feminists across all cultures truly like each other and enjoy each other's company. Patriarchal men, not so much, they probably still think about killing each other's babies when they get together.
The Amish seem easily able to avoid defeat in a meme war: the just don't consume the memes of outsiders. On the other hand, their pacifism would not work in an actual war.
I think feminists are going to have a difficult time wining the meme war if the consequences of feminism are a rising share of people living alone[1], not having sex[2], and not having children[3]. It's going to be really interesting if feminism is long-term associated with declining IQ[4] and social ills stemming from a need to increase immigration due to low fertility rates[5].
Is this what winning looks like?
> Patriarchal men, not so much, they probably still think about killing each other's babies
I don't think casual misandry is the path to understanding this.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/10/05/rising-share-of-u-s-adults-are-living-without-a-spouse-or-partner/
[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/sexual-self/202209/why-were-having-less-sex
[3] https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/31/health/fertility-rates-still-down-after-pandemic-rebound-dg/index.html
[4] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/
[5] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-census-projections-show-immigration-is-essential-to-the-growth-and-vitality-of-a-more-diverse-us-population/
Replace low IQ natives with high IQ immigrants. Just perfect!
Replace low IQ natives with high IQ immigrants. Just perfect!
One of the important ways to do this is with legislation, so single mothers can do more than survive, and raise their children with something energy left for themselves.
It seems rather likely that in a world where women are more biologically motivated to raise children, they will consequently have less collective time for non child raising activities. This would seem to make it very likely that men come to dominate those kinds of activities where there is more male participation.
However as you mentioned, societies that procreate successfully more are also more likely to dominate. A problem in modern first world society is severe reduction in procreation. If nothing changes, it will mean that over time, people from countries that can manage to have more children will dominate over first world societies that don't.
You mention that weakening of fraternal bonds helps gender equality. I think you're right, but there is a very real cost. If women spend more time climbing career ladders, they are not spending as much time looking for a partner. While it's trendy to say that women don't need a man, the fact of the matter is that as humans, we need a partner in life to feel complete. It's in our genes as a necessary motivation for procreation. It is quite sad to me that career equally is being valued over ultimate happiness in life. Not just by women but by men as well. Money is not everything. And interestingly, the church banning cousin marriage lead to a weakening of family ties that has lead to making it harder for those in western societies to raise children (because their parents and siblings are too far to help). Breaking ties of loyalty to families, tribes, and communities I see as a bad thing. Of course the negatives of cousin marriage might make a ban worth the trade off, but other social bond breakings like that seem strictly negative, as they give people a smaller village to help them raise their children, ultimately making parenthood harder. I agree with Kay that making parenthood easier is the best way to align gender equality with the realities of having children.
I hope we humans can find a way to successfully climb Maslow's hierarchy while satisfying our desire for fair treatment. We are becoming a lonely society, and that doesn't feel very positive.
Question: Is there an inherent contradiction in being against single sex spaces if they're male (5b) but being for single sex spaces if they're female (5c)?
Thanks for a great read Alice! I would like to know how you define patriarchy. Reading the article, I thought you were dealing with it as a dichotomous concept, which I don't think it is. Relatedly, even though your regional groupings of countries as persistently patriarchic make sense, there are significant differences across cases if we conceive of patriarchy as a continuous multidimensional and multilayered concept. I am familiar with the MENA region, and one reason why we may have to disintegrate it is how people's perceptions toward gender roles vary cross-nationally. There is even gender divergence within the Arab Gulf states due to different government policies. I wanted to share here charts on how diverse people's attitudes toward gender roles are in the region, but it seems the comment section doesn't permit that. You can find that data downloadable from the Arab Opinion Index.
Never have I said it’s a binary! There are many indicators, it’s always a spectrum.
Is fraternal solidarity incompatible with gender equality? It would be really depressing if gender equality requires men to give up on friendship, connection, and comradery with other men.
The ‘problem’ is/was…pre-birth control, pregnancy without end…year after year after year, with dead babies in between…
Yes, but blame Mother Nature, not men.